Comments:Hiroshima marks 65th atomic bombing anniversary

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
forget manicheism519:11, 31 May 2016
Comments from feedback form - "haha"116:18, 10 August 2010

forget manicheism

One shouldn't try to define whether Japan's population (or from any country) deserved an attack or were the so called "poor people". Declaring such statements would only reflect an ignorant point of view where complex situations are reduced to black or white problems, or the "bad guys" against the "good ones" which does nothing but remind us of a Disney's movie.

The truth is, just as the article reports it, that more than 140 000 civilians were killed using nuclear bombs that made no distinction between women, children, babies, doctors, workers, people that supported the Empire or those who were against it; sportsmen, gardeners, nothing. These people were killed within the span of an eyeblink and thousands that survived it suffered from the nightmare of radioactivity. The only thought of this happening 65 years ago makes me shiver and cry. I would say the same thing if such a disgrace had happen to Americans, Iraqis, Chinese, or people from no matter which country.

We are no one to decide the faith of an entire population even if the mastering of fundamental forces may give us the illusion that we are becoming God. Despite the great technology that requires the development of weapons of mass destruction, they approach us more to an ape than a civilized man. What a sad paradox.

189.146.85.77 (talk)06:01, 9 August 2010

Yeah because NO innocents died in the pearl harbor bombing, right? Because practically instantly ending a war is bad? A war that would have continued, practically non-stop.

70.62.49.12 (talk)19:22, 9 August 2010

Still killing 150.000 civilians was bad thing to do, not comparable to pearl harbor though they didn't open war but attacked cowardly, well u were both gay.

83.7.133.229 (talk)15:39, 10 August 2010
 

The war could have ended sooner. The reason they were a beaten country, they wanted to surrender but the US said no because in their surrender agreement the Japanese Emperor would stay in power(1). And 68 civilian died (most of which were friendly fire)(2)

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor#Sunday_December_7.2C_1941 (2) http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=17 (2) http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtml (2) http://www.angelfire.com/ia/totalwar/PearlHarbor.html

69.126.35.22 (talk)10:26, 18 August 2010

Killing civilians is just wrong!

154.122.128.157 (talk)19:06, 31 May 2016

Especially using a nuclear bomb, however capable we are, is the biggest evil in history. Taking credit to ending the war that way is way overridden by the evil.

154.122.128.157 (talk)19:11, 31 May 2016
 
 
 
 

Comments from feedback form - "haha"

haha

85.227.239.137 (talk)18:31, 8 August 2010

I'm sorry . . . you're laughing at an atomic bombing? Seriously? That's sick, even for a troll.

Δενδοδγε τ\c16:18, 10 August 2010